In support of the personal God

[Devadatta]

This is dedicated to Bandit & InLove:

I, Devadatta, Sower of Confusion, have said a lot against the doctrine of a personal God in certain discussions on these forums. Here I would like to try, uncharacteristically, to sow non-confusion.
Call this a correction notice.

It’s easy to fall into the experience/doctrine trap. My evidence against the idea of a personal God was against doctrine, and especially dogmatic expressions of doctrine, and not against the experience the doctrine points to. Unfortunately, this distinction easily gets lost in discussions, and I think I’ve been guilty more than once of perhaps leaving the wrong impression.

Doctrine is built up in support of particular forms of experience & belief. It only has to be consistent within its system, and doesn’t have to answer to external criteria. The problem comes with attempts to generalize that doctrine beyond its own system, for example, by claiming its logic is universal. That’s one definition of dogmatism in its pejorative sense.

So for me the idea of a personal God as a logical, universal concept is imaginary. But the idea of a personal God as experience is not imaginary. It’s very real.

The gut feelings of belief in God are equally real and not imaginary. The connotations of the word, especially in the sense of Mother/Father, are real reflections of the concrete reality of our utter dependence on this interdependent web of being. God is a perennial concept in human culture because it makes intuitive sense.

As a non-theist I would not claim to have a conceptual framework superior to the theistic framework. I would only claim that there are other conceptual frameworks possible, and which evoke our reality equally well.

I think what’s most valuable all around is imagination – especially the ability to imagine other ways of thinking, feeling & being.

So again this is my way of apologizing if I’ve given anyone the impression that I’m denigrating his or her authentic experience, or that I’m in any way suggesting that it’s not equal or greater than my own.

All the best.

[InLove]

Wow, Devadatta--

That was so clear--

I think I may have already known what you believe, but I am glad you made this post.

Language/culture/religion/etc., etc,-- and, yes, doctrine--especially dogmatic doctrine, often does build walls, even where there are sometimes none.

Anyway--I applaud your effort here in your post.

InPeace,
InLove

[Paladin]

Excellent post Devadatta, very well said. I find your perspective very refreshing!


Peace

Mark

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Devadatta!

I think you said it very well.

And to Paladin, it is nice to see you back!

[Paladin]

Nice to see you Juan! I hope you have been well!

[lunamoth]

Hi Paladin, nice to see you back.

Good post Devadatta. I come to a different conclusion than you about God, but you stated your view nicely.

lunamoth

[Paladin]

Hi Lunamoth, I missed you!


I remember a snipet of a poem by Frater Achad:
"...Out of the Vast comes Nearness"

Meditating on this line for many years now, and each time I fall deeper in love with it. In Religious Science we believe that God acts through us and AS us, but the beauty and deep mystery of the Absolute still wrenches my heart.
I would not be so arrogant as to tell anyone what this should mean or what they should look for, this is only my insight.

Peace

Mark

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Hi Lunamoth, I missed you!


I remember a snipet of a poem by Frater Achad:
"...Out of the Vast comes Nearness"

Meditating on this line for many years now, and each time I fall deeper in love with it. In Religious Science we believe that God acts through us and AS us, but the beauty and deep mystery of the Absolute still wrenches my heart.
I would not be so arrogant as to tell anyone what this should mean or what they should look for, this is only my insight.

Peace

Mark

Thank you for sharing a quote that you hold so dear. I'll meditate on it myself a bit and see where it takes me.

What is Religious Science?

peace,
lunamoth

[Paladin]

Be careful of meditating on that line, sometimes I touch on something deep, tender, loving and all understanding, sometimes the gratitude it invokes is so profound I just start to cry

The last of the founders of New Thought which includes Emma Curtis Hopkins, the teacher of teachers, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore (Unity) and finally, the man whose teachings I study because his spirituality was so expansive, Ernest Holmes.
Holmes started the United Church of Religious Science and I belong to its sister church Religious Science International.
What we study is called the Science of Mind.
Nothing really new in New Thought though, the ideas go back even farther than Swedenborg

Peace
Mark

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Be careful of meditating on that line, sometimes I touch on something deep, tender, loving and all understanding, sometimes the gratitude it invokes is so profound I just start to cry

The last of the founders of New Thought which includes Emma Curtis Hopkins, the teacher of teachers, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore (Unity) and finally, the man whose teachings I study because his spirituality was so expansive, Ernest Holmes.
Holmes started the United Church of Religious Science and I belong to its sister church Religious Science International.
What we study is called the Science of Mind.
Nothing really new in New Thought though, the ideas go back even farther than Swedenborg

Peace
Mark

Thank you for the explanation. I have heard of Science of the Mind before.

peace,
lunamoth

[YNOT]

Wow

[YNOT]

Originally Posted by YNOT

Wow

Devadatta,

You have just articulated one of THE most important collection of ideas I have ever heard expressed in a comparative religions forum. I won't even try to expand upon what you wrote because it can't be improved upon.

Bravo,
Tony